- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54344 WP No. 4244 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 4244 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI KEMPAIAH S/O LATE GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI GURUSIDDAIAH S/O LATE GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT LAKKU TOTA SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI L. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADV., FOR SRI SUDHINDRA S.A, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS. 2. SRI BASAVARAJU S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 3. SRI REVANASIDDAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 4. SOMASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54344 WP No. 4244 of 2023 5. GANGADHAR S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT LAKKUR TOTA, SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. 6. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT TIPTUR, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216. 7. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O GOVINDARAJU T.V AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.214, B.A. GUDIPALYA TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIVEK B.N, ADV., FOR SRI ABHINAV R, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO. 58/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant nos.1 & 2 are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 19.11.2022 passed on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54344 WP No. 4244 of 2023 IA.no.15 in O.S.No.58/2009 by the Court of III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Respondents herein have filed O.S.No.58/2009 before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of declaration of title and the consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect to the suit schedule property. 4. The contesting defendants have filed written statement opposing the suit claim. 5. When the suit was at the stage of addressing arguments, IA.no.15 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to permit him to amend the plaint by incorporating an additional prayer. 6. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objections. 7. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has allowed IA.no.15. Aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54344 WP No. 4244 of 2023 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the plaintiffs have no title over the suit schedule property and the possession of the suit schedule property is with the defendants. The relief of possession sought is barred by limitation, and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in allowing IA.no.15. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has argued in support of the order impugned. 10. Suit in O.S.No.58/2009 was filed seeking the relief of declaration of title over the suit schedule property and the consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have claimed title over the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 17.01.1944, under which father of the plaintiffs had purchased the suit schedule property. Application seeking amendment of the plaint is filed with a prayer to permit the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by incorporating an additional prayer, which reads as under: "B) For possession of schedule property. Further prayer serial number of prayer be corrected consequently, in the ends of justice." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54344 WP No. 4244 of 2023 11. The Trial Court having placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI ARALAPPA VS SRI JAGANNATH & OTHERS - ILR 2007 KAR 339, has allowed the application. In paragraph 31 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under: "31. Even if the plaintiff comes to the court asserting that he is in possession and that if it is found after trial that he was not in possession on the date of this suit, even then, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction is liable to be dismiss as not maintainable as no decree for permanent injunction can be granted if the plaintiff is not in possession as on the date of the suit. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the plaintiff to amend the plaint before the judgment and seek relief of possession. Therefore, a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction by the plaintiff who is not in possession on the date of suit, when he is able to seek further relief of recovery of possession also, omits to do so the court shall not make any such declaration and suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Courts should consider the prayer for amendment of pleadings liberally, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations. In the case - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54344 WP No. 4244 of 2023 on hand, in the event the suit is decreed and if it is found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule property, then the said decree would be a paper decree, and therefore, the proposed amendment is just and necessary so as to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The question of limitation can be always be raised by the defendant by filing additional written statement and in the said event, it is for the Trial Court to decide the same in a full-fledged trial. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for interference. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK